Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Marriage

Soulja874 2011-12-01 19:21:48 UTC #1

Here we go again...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-marriage-150009470.html

http://www.wkyt.com/wymtnews/headlines/Family_plans_to_ask_church_to_reconsider_ban_of_interracial_couples_134788973.html

The vid is what happened in the church the day the ban was issued.

WARNING

Colorful language in the vid, might not be SFW.

JaseHxC 2011-12-01 19:12:41 UTC #2

Institutions, both religious and marital are the downfall of society. It's 2012 people, anyone who has a need for belief in a higher power or the need to be legally attached to someone in order to be happy are fools.

Christine 2011-12-01 19:16:00 UTC #3

Ahmen!

Jewbacca 2011-12-01 19:18:41 UTC #4

I have an idea:

Don't go to that weird church. No one is making you.

In the mean time, their beliefs are their beliefs. Leave them alone.

xXSeraphimXx 2011-12-01 19:29:27 UTC #5

2011, DUH.

JaseHxC 2011-12-01 19:31:16 UTC #6

^^ It's one month away, cut me some slack for leaving out the "almost"

Christine 2011-12-01 19:37:27 UTC #7

Dude, he is typing from the future.

This is the most logical conclusion.

DoubleDuce 2011-12-01 19:42:49 UTC #8

Government is, at heart, a religious institution.

anon65891269 2011-12-01 19:44:10 UTC #9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

anon65891269 2011-12-01 19:45:24 UTC #10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

JaseHxC 2011-12-01 19:47:20 UTC #11

And I also strongly believe that society does not require government for it to function properly and create sustainable life for the inhabitants of this planet. I only mentioned religious/marital as they were the most pertinent to this story, but any structured institution is an unnecessary evil for continued survival.

DoubleDuce 2011-12-01 19:59:37 UTC #12

So dieing is evil and survival is good? That sounds like how you are defining good and evil. Do you mean on an individual or species level?

Either way, that's a horrible way to define them. If on the societal level, you can then justify horrible programs and ideologies. If on the individual, birth is evil, because it cause an individual death.

What I'm really getting at and finding funny, is that good and evil are religious institutions. You are defining a word without religious institutions by religious institutions.

JaseHxC 2011-12-01 21:53:39 UTC #13

Let's pretend words don't have to be used in their original "religious" context. What phrase should I have used instead of "unnecessary evil"? I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make regardless of my apparently "religious" choice of wording.

I'll try to explain myself again, a society without religion, government, etc is perfectly capable of functioning and allowing the human race to grow and prosper. I'll take it a step further, we as humans would be far better off without such institutions.

I get what you were trying to say, but I think you dug a little to far into my comments in an attempt to manufacture an argument. Also, good and evil (morality in general) are human constructs forced upon us and blindly followed by the general populace.

DoubleDuce 2011-12-01 22:04:19 UTC #14

Good, prosper, est are the same. You are still projecting an idea of right and wrong, which is still a religious institution. I'm not getting hung up on the words, I'm talking about your concept. It just happens to be exceptionally ironic you used the term evil.

Right, good, better, nice, whatever you call it, the concept is inherently a religious institution.

Now, you could argue that people could procreate and live long lives and trigger fewer pain nerve endings, BUT ironically, you also lose the ability to tout it as good or assign any sort of value to that result.

JaseHxC 2011-12-01 22:14:20 UTC #15

DoubleDuce wrote:

JaseHxC wrote:
Let's pretend words don't have to be used in their original "religious" context. What phrase should I have used instead of "unnecessary evil"? I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make regardless of my apparently "religious" choice of wording.

I'll try to explain myself again, a society without religion, government, etc is perfectly capable of functioning and allowing the human race to grow and prosper. I'll take it a step further, we as humans would be far better off without such institutions.

I get what you were trying to say, but I think you dug a little to far into my comments in an attempt to manufacture an argument. Also, good and evil (morality in general) are human constructs forced upon us and blindly followed by the general populace.

Good, prosper, est are the same. You are still projecting an idea of right and wrong, which is still a religious institution. I'm not getting hung up on the words, I'm talking about your concept. It just happens to be exceptionally ironic you used the term evil.

Right, good, better, nice, whatever you call it, the concept is inherently a religious institution.

Now, you could argue that people could procreate and live long lives and trigger fewer pain nerve endings, BUT ironically, you also lose the ability to tout it as good or assign any sort of value to that result.

I should have listened to people who warned me about PWI being a cess pool...I stand by what I said, whether I'm explaining it in a contradictory way or not.

orion 2011-12-01 22:18:24 UTC #16

No.

DoubleDuce 2011-12-01 22:21:56 UTC #17

JaseHxC wrote:

DoubleDuce wrote:

JaseHxC wrote:
Let's pretend words don't have to be used in their original "religious" context. What phrase should I have used instead of "unnecessary evil"? I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make regardless of my apparently "religious" choice of wording.

I'll try to explain myself again, a society without religion, government, etc is perfectly capable of functioning and allowing the human race to grow and prosper. I'll take it a step further, we as humans would be far better off without such institutions.

I get what you were trying to say, but I think you dug a little to far into my comments in an attempt to manufacture an argument. Also, good and evil (morality in general) are human constructs forced upon us and blindly followed by the general populace.

Good, prosper, est are the same. You are still projecting an idea of right and wrong, which is still a religious institution. I'm not getting hung up on the words, I'm talking about your concept. It just happens to be exceptionally ironic you used the term evil.

Right, good, better, nice, whatever you call it, the concept is inherently a religious institution.

Now, you could argue that people could procreate and live long lives and trigger fewer pain nerve endings, BUT ironically, you also lose the ability to tout it as good or assign any sort of value to that result.

I should have listened to people who warned me about PWI being a cess pool...I stand by what I said, whether I'm explaining it in a contradictory way or not.

My post is a cess pool for pointing out a glaring logical inconsistency in your far fetched hypothetical?

What makes is a cess pool is people who use impossible to prove or disprove hypotheticals to declare their beliefs the right ones, while in the same statement contradicting myself and finally resorting to name calling when they get called on it.

DoubleDuce 2011-12-01 22:24:25 UTC #18

Yup, in the absolute sense that is being discussed. You can have fairly secular relative meanings assigned to those words, but you then can't use them the way they were being used.

JaseHxC 2011-12-01 22:28:46 UTC #19

This sub forum as a whole is a cess pool. Also, at no point did I claim that your beliefs are wrong and mine are right (oh no, I'm not allowed to use "right" or "wrong") You're entitled to voice your opinion, as I am mine.

As far as your take on all these words and ideals being religious institutions. Religion, like many other things, is a man made concept and any man has the right to reject it. In doing so, the words I choose and their context, religious or non, have no bearing on why I choose to use them.

Do I think that this world ever will be in a position to exist without such things again>? Likely not and thus there certainly is very little evidence to back up my theory. But I like to think we'd do ok (at least the open minded among us) and that's good enough for me.

orion 2011-12-01 22:38:38 UTC #20

That is just a quantitative difference.

Whether good or bad is used in absolute terms by a church, when there are several competing churches, is just a few definitions less then when everyone makes up their own.